The Diary — Old Hoax or New or Not a Hoax at All?​

[rjpalmer]

This does not look like an acute spillage of liquid, but rather a case of chronic water damage from a very slow... drip...drip...drip...drip...drip.... etc... drip... drip...drip...

Hi R. D.

Thanks for your comments but let me draw your attention to the thin staining I have marked with red arrows in the image below, especially the long, thin one at the bottom.

Does this look consistent with a slow drip drip drip drip?

To me, it looks like a swirling pattern as oil is being dribbled onto the cover while the person's hand is moving over the page.

The darkness of the stain and lack of buckling is also consistent with oil and not water.

Cheers.

[Observer]

The blobs are definitely some kind of oil. If you look closely, the outer edge of the blobs are fainter in appearance than the centre, they have a thin outer edge, which is consistent with the way in which oil spreads out as it moves across the paper. A label seems to have been removed from the corner of the cover, is that the blue edge of the label still remaining? The brown mark, showing on the stain where the label has been could be due to a portion of the cover tearing away as the label was removed. This then would stain darker as the paper is now more porous than the rest of the paper lining of the cover.

[Iconoclast]

Hi Herlock -
What do you make of it, if anything?

The great news for you, RJ, is that Herlock has researched this for almost ten minutes and he has discovered that the affidavit signed by Mike Barrett on January 5, 1995 was never actually read by him and certainly not written by him - it was all from the fertile mind of Alan Gray - so you don't need to ask questions about it or worry about whether linseed oil would have warped the cover because Alan Gray pretty much just made it all up.

According to Herlock, that is ...

PS We can therefore skip the bit in his affidavit where Mike explains how he "made a mark 'kidney' shaped, just below centre inside the cover with the Knife" and go back to believing one of my personal favourite Mike moments, the bit where he explains away the kidney shape as occurring when Anne dropped an actual kidney on the inside cover of the book! Now, give Herlock a few minutes research inside his head and I'm sure he'll come back to us and confirm that that little gem was also made up by Alan Gray and Mike just repeated it for funzies.

[rjpalmer]

This could also perhaps be achieved by leaving a box of books in the loft/attic at the top of the house...but there being a small leak in the roof causing water to drip thorugh the roof and down onto the box.

I'm afraid I can't agree, R.D.

Only the inside of the front cover is damaged. The outside of the cover is not, nor the binding nor the edges of the papers. The damage occurred when the photo album was open and flat, which wouldn't be the case if the book was in storage.

Also, enlargements of the damage are consistent with an oily substance. It doesn't look like water damage; it looks like oil (if I recall, Jon Menges thought the same thing), but I'm more than willing to hear the opinions of those who have seen the album up close, such as James Johnston.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock -

There's seldom anything new in Diaryland, just the same tired 'stock' arguments repetitively regurgitated by the combatants, but a few months back Jon Menges uploaded, for the first time, images of the suspicious pattern of staining on the diary's inside cover.

This was something entirely new, but not one commentator (other than me) showed any interest in these stains, which I find a bit odd. What do you make of them?

Barrett claimed he tried to remove a stamp or mark of some sort, showing the photograph album dated to around 1909, but of course the Diary believers will simply argue that Barrett knew of the stains and exploited this detail in his secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit. They will also stick to a hard-nosed and literal interpretation of the Barrett/Gray affidavit when it states that Mike soaked the 'whole' cover, when it is just (in my opinion) a figure of speech.

I'm not sure that helps them, though. The pattern of staining is not consistent with an accidental spill. There is no splash pattern, for instance, and no pattern of where a bottle or can of oil upended; it appears that the oily substance was deliberately applied while the photo album was open and flat. Based on my experiments, it is also clear that something was rubbed on the oil after it was allowed to soak into the papers---so vigorously that it wore away part of the end paper in the upper left corner, exactly where one might expect to find a name or some other identifying feature. The second pattern of oil, in the center of the endpaper, looks like the oil was deliberately dribbled from above. Again, this hardly looks like what one would expect to see from an accidental spill.

Can you come up with any innocent explanation for these strange patterns?

Here is Barrett's description.

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out."

My experiments also showed that the claim that linseed oil would emit a strong odor is the usual poppycock of people who seldom if ever test any of their dogmatic and unlettered pronouncements. I used a new, pure bottle of linseed oil/flaxseed oil and there was no discernible odor.

I even heated, for a short time, the experimental book cover in an oven, and I noticed that the oil pattern spread out and enlarged when heat was applied--which could be consistent with the patterns on the inside cover. I am particularly interested in the double outline of the 'kidney' shape because it is quite similar to the pattern that appeared when I reheated my own book cover. What I assume happened is that the oil, as it heated up, began to become fluid again, and then further spread into the paper fibers.



What do you make of it, if anything?

The photos are reminiscent of a book that has been left in storage for some time, but exposed to dripping water.

IMO this same effect would be achieved by leaving a book in a conservatory in the winter, and then condensation from a glass roof dripping down onto the book over a period of some time; perhaps years...resulting in a very slow process of water damage deteriorating the book binder, which would then seep through to the inside of the book binder.

This could also perhaps be achieved by leaving a box of books in the loft/attic at the top of the house...but there being a small leak in the roof causing water to drip thorugh the roof and down onto the box.

This is unlikely to have occurred under a floor board under the house; unless there was a dripping pipe running just above where the book was alleged to have been found.

This does not look like an acute spillage of liquid, but rather a case of chronic water damage from a very slow... drip...drip...drip...drip...drip.... etc... drip... drip...drip...

Over time...you'd end up with something that looks like the book in those pictures above.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Herlock -

There's seldom anything new in Diaryland, just the same tired 'stock' arguments repetitively regurgitated by the combatants, but a few months back Jon Menges uploaded, for the first time, images of the suspicious pattern of staining on the diary's inside cover.

This was something entirely new, but not one commentator (other than me) showed any interest in these stains, which I find a bit odd. What do you make of them?

Barrett claimed he tried to remove a stamp or mark of some sort, showing the photograph album dated to around 1909, but of course the Diary believers will simply argue that Barrett knew of the stains and exploited this detail in his secret, non-circulating confessional affidavit. They will also stick to a hard-nosed and literal interpretation of the Barrett/Gray affidavit when it states that Mike soaked the 'whole' cover, when it is just (in my opinion) a figure of speech.

I'm not sure that helps them, though. The pattern of staining is not consistent with an accidental spill. There is no splash pattern, for instance, and no pattern of where a bottle or can of oil upended; it appears that the oily substance was deliberately applied while the photo album was open and flat. Based on my experiments, it is also clear that something was rubbed on the oil after it was allowed to soak into the papers---so vigorously that it wore away part of the end paper in the upper left corner, exactly where one might expect to find a name or some other identifying feature. The second pattern of oil, in the center of the endpaper, looks like the oil was deliberately dribbled from above. Again, this hardly looks like what one would expect to see from an accidental spill.

Can you come up with any innocent explanation for these strange patterns?

Here is Barrett's description.

"When I got the Album and Compass home, I examined it closely, inside the front cover I noticed a makers stamp mark, dated 1908 or 1909 to remove this without trace I soaked the whole of the front cover in Linseed Oil, once the oil was absorbed by the front cover, which took about 2 days to dry out. I even used the heat from the gas oven to assist in the drying out."

My experiments also showed that the claim that linseed oil would emit a strong odor is the usual poppycock of people who seldom if ever test any of their dogmatic and unlettered pronouncements. I used a new, pure bottle of linseed oil/flaxseed oil and there was no discernible odor.

I even heated, for a short time, the experimental book cover in an oven, and I noticed that the oil pattern spread out and enlarged when heat was applied--which could be consistent with the patterns on the inside cover. I am particularly interested in the double outline of the 'kidney' shape because it is quite similar to the pattern that appeared when I reheated my own book cover. What I assume happened is that the oil, as it heated up, began to become fluid again, and then further spread into the paper fibers.



What do you make of it, if anything?

[Patrick Differ]

Not sure what happened there. As I was saying before fingers got in the way, Kosminski would have been an embicil all his life if that was his diagnosis. They were categorizing patients back then in some level of psychiatry through observation and trends. Doubtful a Street wise prostitute, especially with Leather Apron and attention on immigrant Jews on everyone's mind, would entertain a Kosminski.
in terms of DNA, it would depend on the type and many other historical factors after 135 years.
Kosminski seems to be a front runner but I am skeptical and would have to see the evidence and how it was obtained. Assume the supposed piece of Eddowes chintz skirt is where the DNA was collected??
A Yiddish speaking embicil as the Ripper?

[Iconoclast]

Regarding the DNA test and Kosminski. If He was an embicil

Do you want to try that one again, Patrick?

[Iconoclast]

Gray typing up what he believed should be said while Barratt sits there agreeing with him is not dictation. Can we at least agree that much?

I'm not sure it matters too much either way but - yes - I will concur that Barrett sitting there like he died three weeks ago would not in my book be classed as dictation.

I haven't ignored how the November 5 statement was created.

Good lad. You know it makes sense.

You have ignored the fact that there is no equivalent recording for the typing of the affidavit.

I haven't ignored it at all - I just haven't had cause to address it yet.

Why not?

Well, if you permit me the licence that you evidently afford yourself in spades, it may have something to do with our not having every interaction between Mike Chuckle and Alan Chuckle either recorded or available to hear. For all we can ever know now, there was a recording made and it has since either been lost or not made public. I know I don't have it but maybe someone does. To apply a little more of your licence, perhaps we might imagine that that recording was too incriminating and therefore has been suppressed from public consumption. Who knows?

It suggests to me that Barrett wasn"t present while it was being typed.

See above, but perhaps it does suggest that Barrett wasn't there. Their recordings were primarily in Barrett's house(s) as far as I can recall, unless they were travelling somewhere. If Barrett wasn't in attendance at the creation of his January 5, 1995 affidavit, I'm really not sure where to go from there regarding his role in any mooted hoax.

It probably doesn't matter now anyway if Kosminski has been given the win and top spot on the podium, as it were ...

What on earth will I do to fill my days now???

[Patrick Differ]

Regarding the DNA test and Kosminski. If He was an embicil

[Iconoclast]

Today's DNA test results, from Catherine Eddowes shawl apparently proves, via Kosminskys ggg neice, beyond doubts that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack.
Interesting.

Well, my Irish friend, if it was Kosminski, quite a few regular posters on here have just been royally swatted like flies against an unforgiving wall (not me - I'm far too quick and nimble to be caught in RJ's man-size swatter).

I might have expected a bit more traffic on the subject here on the Casebook. Is the case finally solved, everyone?

[Dublindocker]

Today's DNA test results, from Catherine Eddowes shawl apparently proves, via Kosminskys ggg neice, beyond doubts that Aaron Kosminsky was Jack.
Interesting.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.



It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.



No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.



I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.



What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?



Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?

Gray typing up what he believed should be said while Barratt sits there agreeing with him is not dictation. Can we at least agree that much?

I haven't ignored how the November 5 statement was created. You have ignored the fact that there is no equivalent recording for the typing of the affidavit. Why not? It suggests to me that Barrett wasn"t present while it was being typed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's desperately more complicated than Gray typing on Barrett's word processor with Barrett sitting there agreeing to whatever Gray was typing - as happened on the only occasion we have any evidence for this process occurring (November 5, 1994).

It seems to require Gray to be making notes from one or more conversations with Barrett, going away, typing up his best recollections of his terribly disorganised note-taking, getting pretty much everything wrong (apart from some truly irrelevant 'confirmed' stuff), going back to Barrett, presenting him with the printed-out document and getting him to sign it without reading it out to him or letting him read it.

When you say "I honestly don't know I can say it any clearer" I genuinely was wondering if you were laughing as you typed it.

It's possible, I'll give you that much. Like Billy the white horse trotting through our garden at 4am today.

But does anyone actually find your imagination on this point plausible?

Are you quite sure it was typed on Barrett's word processor, Ike? It sounded very much like a manual typewriter on the tape.

I agree with everything you said about how Gray must have prepared the affidavit (which all seems straightforward to me) except for the bit where you say it wasn't read out to him. I already accepted it would have been read to him but he was likely either drunk or not listening properly.

That's not to say that he wouldn't have agreed with most of it. Like I said, he appears to have believed at the time that he brought the diary down to London in April 1990, later correcting that, still wrongly, to April 1991. Once you start from April 1990 as your reference point for the diary being first shown to Doreen, no wonder everything else about the chronology is wrong.

[Iconoclast]

Okay, now you've introduced the concept of dictation.

Only by way of an analogy. In reality, we have the evidence of the November 5, 1994 report to the police where we can sit and listen to Gray typing-up what he believes should be said whilst Barrett sits there agreeing with him.

Perhaps that's the image you have in your head.

It is the only image the evidence suggests to us we should have in our heads.

Perhaps because you think that's how it should have been done.

No, because that's what the evidence suggests it's how it would have been done.

Or perhaps because that's how Mike said the diary was written.

I hadn't thought of that, no, but - now that you have mentioned it - there's further evidence that Barrett claimed to have previously dictated a document for someone else to write up.

I've explained what undoubtedly occurred.

What you have 'explained' (how can you 'explain' something when you weren't there???) is a very unlikely claim. You haven't explained anything - you've just retrofitted the creation of the affidavit to suit your agenda and totally ignored the evidence of how these things went down previously. In the case of the November 5 report, we have it all on tape!

How can you - in all conscience - 'explain' to us something you weren't privy to and present it as a solution because it just happens to align with your wider narrative?

How can you do that?

Whether you accept that or reject it is up to you.

Of course I can't accept that! Who could accept your amazing summary of events for which you were not privy. ignoring the inconvenient evidence which suggests your imagination is significantly wrong, and still pompously tell us you've solved the question of the affidavit's creation when you patently have just created another Eleven-Day Evangelism for Orsamites to worship?